From pycyn@aol.com Sat Oct 06 14:19:18 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 6 Oct 2001 21:19:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 46366 invoked from network); 6 Oct 2001 21:19:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 6 Oct 2001 21:19:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r04.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.100) by mta1 with SMTP; 6 Oct 2001 21:19:17 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id r.a7.14e0e151 (17381) for ; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 17:19:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 17:19:07 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: noxemol ce'u To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_a7.14e0e151.28f0cf4b_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_a7.14e0e151.28f0cf4b_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 10/5/2001 7:43:39 PM Central Daylight Time,=20 a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes: > In the case of {le du'u ce'u broda} the ce'u is in a subordinate bridi > and there is no way it can be in a nonsubordinate bridi. In the case of=20 > {le mamta be ce'u} it is not. >=20 Sorry, as I have said regularly, this {ce'u} is claerly in as subordinate a= =20 brid as is the one in {le du'u ce'u broda} and furthermore, as a linguist,= =20 you ought to know that it is. What is your point here? special by this claim, but in its plain sense it is just false:=20 > raising=A0 {le melba} from {mi senva le nu le melba cu cinba mi} allows=20 > an illegitimate quantification,=20 I don't see what illegitimate quantification is allowed.> To {da zo'u mi senva le nu da cinba mi} Ain't no such da, and no reason to= =20 think there is. <> fronting {le brode} in {da broda le brode} changes the meaning.=A0=20 > How does you theory deal with these?=A0=20 I recognize the second objection as prima facie valid, and "my theory" [I am happy for it to be called my theory, but before your dissent I would have taken it for uncontroversial fact] accounts for it thus: =A0=A0 da broda le brode =3D=A0 x zo'u da broda ro lu'a x (voi brode)> Since the equation is not obviously correct (and is further partly=20 untranslatable as it stands), I con't find this an account of anyhting. x = is=20 I suppose a mass that exists independently of this sentence in the view of= =20 the speaker and later he will assign it as the reference of {brode}. What= =20 has this to do with the scope? Ah, so this is a terminological problem, as= =20 so often in loglan work (curse you again, JCB, for being a linguistic slob= =20 to Fennimore Cooper to shame). OK, now i have no idea what your claim mean= s=20 or how it affects the topic under discussion. You think that {le mamta be= =20 ce'u} violates it somehow, apparently, but I don't see how it even relates = to=20 it. Maybe, I should go against the usual habit and use another gadri? But= =20 no one does in the other cases -- what is special here? bridi:x1 (text) is a predicate relationship with relation x2 among argument= s=20 (sequence/set) x3 No "grammatical bridi", whatever that may mean, no "clause." Admittedly,=20 this is usual Lojban sloppy terminology (as is selbri for "brivla or tanru,= "=20 which runs throught Refgram). But here it is justified, since at about two= ,=20 levels down -- if not jsut one, I forget the details of your scheme and=20 whether it is more complex than mine -- the expression here IS a grammatic= al=20 bridi. And the transformations you want to make almost inevitably go throug= h=20 that level. Well, completely rewritten it to change it from palpably false to trivially= =20 true. Since the only sumti which match the original case are externally=20 conjoined sumti, which by definition can be split sententially, this is not= a=20 very interesting case. Alternatively, you can, as I suppose you intend, go= =20 from {la djoun du le mamta be la bil} to, say, {da du la djoun ije da mamta= =20 la bil} which will work assuming that the {le} is veridical and unique, whi= ch=20 by your rules elsewhere, it is not. So, the meaning changes. --part1_a7.14e0e151.28f0cf4b_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 10/5/2001 7:43:39 PM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@dt= n.ntl.com writes:

In the case of {le du'u c= e'u broda} the ce'u is in a subordinate bridi
and there is no way it can be in a nonsubordinate bridi. In the case of= =20
{le mamta be ce'u} it is not.

Sorry, as I have said regularly, this {ce'u} is claerly in as subordina= te a brid as is the one in {le du'u ce'u broda} and furthermore, as a lingu= ist, you ought to know that it is. What is your point here?

<You may mean something=20
> special by this claim, but in its plain sense it is just false:=20
> raising=A0 {le melba} from {mi senva le nu le melba cu cinba mi} a= llows=20
> an illegitimate quantification,=20

I don't see what illegitimate quantification is allowed.>

To {da zo'u mi senva le nu da cinba mi} Ain't no such da, and no = reason to think there is.

<> fronting {le brode} in {da broda le brode} changes the meaning= .=A0=20
> How does you theory deal with these?=A0=20

I recognize the second objection as prima facie valid, and "my theory"
[I am happy for it to be called my theory, but before your dissent I
would have taken it for uncontroversial fact] accounts for it thus:

=A0=A0 da broda le brode
=3D=A0 x zo'u da broda ro lu'a x (voi brode)>

Since the equation is not obviously correct (and is further partly untr= anslatable as it stands), I con't find this an account of anyhting. x= is I suppose a mass that exists independently of this sentence in the view= of the speaker and later he will assign it as the reference of {brode}. &n= bsp;What has this to do with the scope? Ah, so this is a terminologic= al problem, as so often in loglan work (curse you again, JCB, for bei= ng a linguistic slob to Fennimore Cooper to shame). OK, now i have no= idea what your claim means or how it affects the topic under discussion. &= nbsp;You think that {le mamta be ce'u} violates it somehow, apparently, but= I don't see how it even relates to it. Maybe, I should go against th= e usual habit and use another gadri? But no one does in the other cas= es -- what is special here?

<When I accused you of bad faith in recent discussion you protested
your innocence, so I had better keep a lid on my incredulity.

"Bridi" means, almost always, "grammatical bridi, clause". {le mamta
be ce'u} is not a grammatical bridi. These are statements of fact.>

bridi:x1 (text) is a predicate relationship with relation x2 among argu= ments (sequence/set) x3

No "grammatical bridi", whatever that may mean, no "clause." Admi= ttedly, this is usual Lojban sloppy terminology (as is selbri for "brivla o= r tanru," which runs throught Refgram). But here it is justified, sin= ce at about two, levels down -- if not jsut one, I forget the details of yo= ur scheme and whether it is more complex than mine -- the expression = here IS a grammatical bridi. And the transformations you want to make almos= t inevitably go through that level.

<The principle I expressed says that (I recast it):

When sumti phrase X is within sumti phrase Y and every bridi that
contains X or Y also contains the other, then the bridi can be
paraphrased, without changing meaning, in such a way that X is=20
not within Y.>

Well, completely rewritten it to change it from palpably false to trivi= ally true. Since the only sumti which match the original case are ext= ernally conjoined sumti, which by definition can be split sententially, thi= s is not a very interesting case. Alternatively, you can, as I suppos= e you intend, go from {la djoun du le mamta be la bil} to, say, {da du la d= joun ije da mamta la bil} which will work assuming that the {le} is veridic= al and unique, which by your rules elsewhere, it is not. So, the mean= ing changes.

--part1_a7.14e0e151.28f0cf4b_boundary--